Nathan wrote:
>Yes, it's convenient that the ultraleft can dismiss the AFL-CIO, the
>NAACP, the Sierra Club, the Human Rights Campaign, and every other
>major mass organization out there as "not the movement." Since I
>can point you to multiples of their meetings where defeating Bush
>and the rightwing was made a priority.
-Among the aforementioned organizations, which one had a membership -meeting on the basis of one person, one vote and decided to endorse -the Democratic Party presidential candidate? None. -I'm not saying that they wouldn't endorse John Kerry if they had such -votes, but the fact of the matter is that they don't even bother to -hold such votes, and in the case of the AFL-CIO, officials would -certainly resist holding such a vote.
Are you arguing that the AFL-CIO had to run a plesicite among each member to decide whether they could legitimately be involved in a political campaign? You sound like you are mouthing the "paycheck protection" line of the rightwing, where elected leaders of the unions have no democratic legitimacy to act.
Should the SEIU also have held a plebicite of members before they endorsed gay marriage? Is their endorsement of that movement illegitimate because elected union leaders decided it was important to the union values to be involved?
All of the organizations listed above have elections for leaders, who in turn may collectively endorse candidate in various democratic votes. You seem to be demanding that each organization run a mini-primary involving their millions of members before they can act. And of course, requiring that vote would completely disable the power of the organizational leaders to bargain with candidates for concessions from the candidates. Instead, the candidates could appeal based on other issues-- just imagine a pro-life or pro-gun candidate trying to pick off a labor endorsement through such a plebiscite and never have to promise a thing on labor issues to get the endorsement. Not to mention the expense of such elections for them to be meaningful.
Look at your Greens, Yoshie. The ultra-process folks couldn't even hold a vote without two sides denouncing each other for an "undemocratic" vote. There's no such thing as a real "one person, one vote" election in anything other than a fixed governmental election where membership in a particular electorate at a point in time is not voluntary.
John Kerry won a primary plebiscite involving more union voters, black voters, latino voters, gay voters or any other kind of progressive voters you might mention. So if you're going to ignore the votes of the AFL-CIO and other mass organizations supporting him, why do you ignore that mass vote for Kerry?
Nathan Newman